Turkish lawmakers switch parties in challenge to Erdogan

@BMD
1971 War: How Russia sank Nixon’s gunboat diplomacy
HISTORY
DEC 20, 2011
RAKESH KRISHNAN SIMHA
59e4cec685600a0a113dbd1c.jpg

An Indian Army soldiers at Pakistani positions in a village across an open field, 1,500 yards inside the East Pakistan border at Dongarpara on Dec. 7, 1971.
AP
  • 440
Exactly 40 years ago, India won a famous victory over Pakistan due to its brilliant soldiers, an unwavering political leadership, and strong diplomatic support from Moscow. Less well known is Russia’s power play that prevented a joint British-American attack on India.
Washington DC, December 3, 1971, 10:45am.
US President Richard Nixon is on the phone with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, hours after Pakistan launched simultaneous attacks on six Indian airfields, a reckless act that prompted India to declare war.
Nixon:
So West Pakistan giving trouble there.
Kissinger: If they lose half of their country without fighting they will be destroyed. They may also be destroyed this way but they will go down fighting.
Nixon: The Pakistan thing makes your heart sick. For them to be done so by the Indians and after we have warned the bitch (reference to Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi). Tell them that when India talks about West Pakistan attacking them it's like Russia claiming to be attacked by Finland.
Washington, December 10, 1971, 10:51am.
A week later the war is not going very well for Pakistan, as Indian armour scythes through East Pakistan and the Pakistan Air Force is blown out of the subcontinent’s sky. Meanwhile, the Pakistani military in the west is demoralised and on the verge of collapse as the Indian Army and Air Force attack round the clock.
Nixon: Our desire is to save West Pakistan. That's all.
Kissinger: That's right. That is exactly right.
Nixon: All right. Keep those carriers moving now.
Kissinger: The carriers—everything is moving. Four Jordanian planes have already moved to Pakistan, 22 more are coming. We're talking to the Saudis, the Turks we've now found are willing to give five. So we're going to keep that moving until there's a settlement.
Nixon: Could you tell the Chinese it would be very helpful if they could move some forces or threaten to move some forces?
Kissinger: Absolutely.
Nixon: They've got to threaten or they've got to move, one of the two. You know what I mean?
Kissinger: Yeah.
Nixon: How about getting the French to sell some planes to the Paks?
Kissinger: Yeah. They're already doing it.
Nixon: This should have been done long ago. The Chinese have not warned the Indians.
Kissinger: Oh, yeah.
Nixon: All they've got to do is move something. Move a division. You know, move some trucks. Fly some planes. You know, some symbolic act. We're not doing a goddamn thing, Henry, you know that.
Kissinger: Yeah.
Nixon: But these Indians are cowards. Right?
Kissinger: Right. But with Russian backing. You see, the Russians have sent notes to Iran, Turkey, to a lot of countries threatening them. The Russians have played a miserable game.
If the two American leaders were calling Indians cowards, a few months earlier the Indians were a different breed altogether. This phone call is from May 1971.
Nixon: The Indians need—what they need really is a—
Kissinger: They’re such *censored*s.
Nixon: A mass famine. But they aren't going to get that…But if they're not going to have a famine the last thing they need is another war. Let the goddamn Indians fight a war.
Kissinger: They are the most aggressive goddamn people around there.
The 1971 war is considered to be modern India’s finest hour, in military terms. The clinical professionalism of the Indian army, navy and air force; a charismatic brass led by the legendary Sam Maneckshaw; and ceaseless international lobbying by the political leadership worked brilliantly to set up a famous victory. After two weeks of vicious land, air and sea battles, nearly 100,000 Pakistani soldiers surrendered before India's rampaging army, the largest such capitulation since General Paulus' surrender at Stalingrad in 1943. However, it could all have come unstuck without help from veto-wielding Moscow, with which New Delhi had the foresight to sign a security treaty in 1970.
As Nixon’s conversations with the wily Kissinger show, the forces arrayed against India were formidable. The Pakistani military was being bolstered by aircraft from Jordan, Iran, Turkey and France. Moral and military support was amply provided by the US, China and the UK. Though not mentioned in the conversations here, the UAE sent in half a squadron of fighter aircraft and the Indonesians dispatched at least one naval vessel to fight alongside the Pakistani Navy.
However, Russia’s entry thwarted a scenario that could have led to multiple pincer movements against India.
Superpowers face-off
On December 10, even as Nixon and Kissinger were frothing at the mouth, Indian intelligence intercepted an American message, indicating that the US Seventh Fleet was steaming into the war zone. The Seventh Fleet, which was then stationed in the Gulf of Tonkin, was led by the 75,000 ton nuclear powered aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise. The world’s largest warship, it carried more than 70 fighters and bombers. The Seventh Fleet also included the guided missile cruiser USS King, guided missile destroyers USS Decatur, Parsons and Tartar Sam, and a large amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli.
Standing between the Indian cities and the American ships was the Indian Navy’s Eastern Fleet led by the 20,000-ton aircraft carrier, Vikrant, with barely 20 light fighter aircraft. When asked if India’s Eastern Fleet would take on the Seventh Fleet, the Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Vice Admiral N. Krishnan, said: “Just give us the orders.” The Indian Air Force, having wiped out the Pakistani Air Force within the first week of the war, was reported to be on alert for any possible intervention by aircraft from the Enterprise.
Meanwhile, Soviet intelligence reported that a British naval group led by the aircraft carrier Eagle had moved closer to India’s territorial waters. This was perhaps one of the most ironic events in modern history where the Western world’s two leading democracies were threatening the world’s largest democracy in order to protect the perpetrators of the largest genocide since the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. However, India did not panic. It quietly sent Moscow a request to activate a secret provision of the Indo-Soviet security treaty, under which Russia was bound to defend India in case of any external aggression.
The British and the Americans had planned a coordinated pincer to intimidate India: while the British ships in the Arabian Sea would target India’s western coast, the Americans would make a dash into the Bay of Bengal in the east where 100,000 Pakistani troops were caught between the advancing Indian troops and the sea.

To counter this two-pronged British-American threat, Russia dispatched a nuclear-armed flotilla from Vladivostok on December 13 under the overall command of Admiral Vladimir Kruglyakov, the Commander of the 10th Operative Battle Group (Pacific Fleet). Though the Russian fleet comprised a good number of nuclear-armed ships and atomic submarines, their missiles were of limited range (less than 300 km). Hence to effectively counter the British and American fleets the Russian commanders had to undertake the risk of encircling them to bring them within their target. This they did with military precision.
In an interview to a Russian TV programme after his retirement, Admiral Kruglyakov, who commanded the Pacific Fleet from 1970 to 1975, recalled that Moscow ordered the Russian ships to prevent the Americans and British from getting closer to “Indian military objects”. The genial Kruglyakov added: “The Chief Commander’s order was that our submarines should surface when the Americans appear. It was done to demonstrate to them that we had nuclear submarines in the Indian Ocean. So when our subs surfaced, they recognised us. In the way of the American Navy stood the Soviet cruisers, destroyers and atomic submarines equipped with anti-ship missiles. We encircled them and trained our missiles at the Enterprise. We blocked them and did not allow them to close in on Karachi, Chittagong or Dhaka."
At this point, the Russians intercepted a communication from the commander of the British carrier battle group, Admiral Dimon Gordon, to the Seventh Fleet commander: “Sir, we are too late. There are the Russian atomic submarines here, and a big collection of battleships.” The British ships fled towards Madagascar while the larger US task force stopped before entering the Bay of Bengal.
The Russian manoeuvres clearly helped prevent a direct clash between India and the US-UK combine. Newly declassified documents reveal that the Indian Prime Minister went ahead with her plan to liberate Bangladesh despite inputs that the Americans had kept three battalions of Marines on standby to deter India, and that the American aircraft carrier USS Enterprise had orders to target the Indian Army, which had broken through the Pakistani Army’s defences and was thundering down the highway to the gates of Lahore, West Pakistan’s second largest city.
According to a six-page note prepared by India's foreign ministry, "The bomber force aboard the Enterprise had the US President's authority to undertake bombing of the Indian Army's communications, if necessary."
China in the box
Despite Kissinger’s goading and desperate Pakistani calls for help, the Chinese did nothing. US diplomatic documents reveal that Indira Gandhi knew the Soviets had factored in the possibility of Chinese intervention. According to a cable referring to an Indian cabinet meeting held on December 10, “If the Chinese were to become directly involved in the conflict, Indira Gandhi said, the Chinese know that the Soviet Union would act in the Sinkiang region. Soviet air support may be made available to India at that time.”
Interestingly, while the cable is declassified, the source and extensive details of the Indian Prime Minister’s briefing remain classified. “He is a reliable source” is all that the document says. There was very clearly a cabinet level mole the Americans were getting their information from.
Intolerable hatred
On December 14, General A.A.K. Niazi, Pakistan's military commander in East Pakistan, told the American consul-general in Dhaka that he was willing to surrender. The message was relayed to Washington, but it took the US 19 hours to relay it to New Delhi. Files suggest senior Indian diplomats suspected the delay was because Washington was possibly contemplating military action against India.
Kissinger went so far as to call the crisis “our Rhineland” a reference to Hitler’s militarisation of German Rhineland at the outset of World War II. This kind of powerful imagery indicates how strongly Kissinger and Nixon came to see Indians as a threat.
An Indiana University study of the conflict says: “The violation of human rights on a massive scale—described in a March 30 US cable as “selective genocide”—and the complete disregard for democracy were irrelevant to Nixon and Kissinger. In fact, the non-democratic aspects of Pakistani dictator Yahya Khan’s behaviour seemed to be what impressed them the most. As evidence mounted of military atrocities in East Pakistan, Nixon and Kissinger remained unmoved. In a Senior Review Group meeting, Kissinger commented at news of significant casualties at a university that, ‘The British didn’t dominate 400 million Indians all those years by being gentle’.”
Nixon and Kissinger phoned Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev and asked for guarantees that India would not attack West Pakistan. “Nixon was ready to link the future summit in Moscow to Soviet behaviour on this issue," writes professor Vladislav M. Zubok in A Failed Empire. "The Soviets could not see why the White House supported Pakistan, who they believed had started the war against India. Brezhnev, puzzled at first, was soon enraged. In his narrow circle, he even suggested giving India the secret of the atomic bomb. His advisers did their best to kill this idea. Several years later, Brezhnev still reacted angrily and spoke spitefully about American behaviour."
Cold Warriors
Another telephone conversation between the scheming duo reveals a lot about the mindset of those at the highest echelons of American decision making:
Kissinger: And the point you made yesterday, we have to continue to squeeze the Indians even when this thing is settled.
Nixon: We've got to for rehabilitation. I mean, Jesus Christ, they've bombed—I want all the war damage; I want to help Pakistan on the war damage in Karachi and other areas, see?
Kissinger: Yeah
Nixon: I don't want the Indians to be happy. I want a public relations programme developed to piss on the Indians.
Kissinger: Yeah.
Nixon: I want to piss on them for their responsibility. Get a white paper out. Put down, White paper. White paper. Understand that?
Kissinger: Oh, yeah.
Nixon: I don't mean for just your reading. But a white paper on this.
Kissinger: No, no. I know.
Nixon: I want the Indians blamed for this, you know what I mean? We can't let these goddamn, sanctimonious Indians get away with this. They've pissed on us on Vietnam for 5 years, Henry.
Kissinger: Yeah.
Nixon:
Aren't the Indians killing a lot of these people?
Kissinger: Well, we don't know the facts yet. But I'm sure they're not as stupid as the West Pakistanis—they don't let the press in. The idiot Paks have the press all over their place.

1971 War: How Russia sank Nixon’s gunboat diplomacy
Reading the history of it seems you pulled a Russia in S. Ossetia trick. You supported a rebel insurgency in East Pakistan and then when Pakistan responded to that, you had an excuse to become involved militarily. Can't really say you have the moral high ground there, although that doesn't excuse Pakistani atrocities. And given this move earlier in the year.

Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation - Wikipedia

This would have been seen as you acting as a proxy of the USSR, so any reaction you got, you deserved.

An equivalent situation would be China supporting an armed insurgency somewhere on the Indian border and then intervening when you moved to crush it. And if that were to happen, the Russians would look up at the sky and whistle and you would ask NATO for help.
 
Reading the history of it seems you pulled a Russia in S. Ossetia trick. You supported a rebel insurgency in East Pakistan and then when Pakistan responded to that, you had an excuse to become involved militarily. Can't really say you have the moral high ground there, although that doesn't excuse Pakistani atrocities. And given this move earlier in the year.

Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation - Wikipedia

This would have been seen as you acting as a proxy of the USSR, so any reaction you got, you deserved.

An equivalent situation would be China supporting an armed insurgency somewhere on the Indian border and then intervening when you moved to crush it. And if that were to happen, the Russians would look up at the sky and whistle and you would ask NATO for help.
You seems to be jumping here and there what happened to your claim of "top classified documents leaked" or calling them Russian propaganda.

Now prove how those transcripts released by US govt are Russian propaganda before jumping to how evil is Russia.
 
You seems to be jumping here and there what happened to your claim of "top classified documents leaked" or calling them Russian propaganda.

Now prove how those transcripts released by US govt are Russian propaganda before jumping to how evil is Russia.
Prove how supporting an insurgency in a neighbouring country is not evil before jumping to how evil NATO is. At the end of the day you aligned yourselves with the likes of Stalin and a superpower that was putting the whole of Europe and Asia under threat. What you got in response should have been what you expected. Blame your dumb politicians for being dumb instead of looking elsewhere.

Here's a wild suggestion. Maybe if you hadn't a) sponsored an insurgency in a neighbouring country and b) signed a treaty of co-operation with the arch enemy of the free, democratic world, then maybe, just maybe you would have got a different response.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Aravind
Prove how supporting an insurgency in a neighbouring country is not evil before jumping to how evil NATO is. At the end of the day you aligned yourselves with the likes of Stalin and a superpower that was putting the whole of Europe and Asia under threat. What you got in response should have been what you expected. Blame your dumb politicians for being dumb instead of looking elsewhere.

Here's a wild suggestion. Maybe if you hadn't a) sponsored an insurgency in a neighbouring country and b) signed a treaty of co-operation with the arch enemy of the free, democratic world, then maybe, just maybe you would have got a different response.

1) I never claimed NATO is evil (I avoid generalizations).

2) Russia is bad and India is worst if that makes you feel better.

3) Your "response" reply is both ludicrous and self contradictory, one hand you said US always supported India in all wars and on other hand you are justifying "a different response". So first be clear what you want to say. Take sometime off, clear your head and then say what you want to say, this reflects a confused mentality.

And for what it's worth your "different response" didn't change a thing so show your threats and tantrums to tiny countries where they work.

4) You still didn't answer my question.

5) Provided the facts above right from US govt which contradicts your fantasies and claims I don't think you are in any position to answer anything so a suggestion for you to avoid your spanking on any forum:

Don't start any topic you have no idea about. Forums are different than Facebook status and tweets, you will get rebuttals and alot of them won't be appreciating your cluelessness of the topic but destroying you.

Talk only what you know, read what you don't, and always be ready to accept your mistake instead of justifying it otherwise you will keep getting it from left and right without even knowing what hit you.
 
1) I never claimed NATO is evil (I avoid generalizations).

2) Russia is bad and India is worst if that makes you feel better.

3) Your "response" reply is both ludicrous and self contradictory, one hand you said US always supported India in all wars and on other hand you are justifying "a different response". So first be clear what you want to say. Take sometime off, clear your head and then say what you want to say, this reflects a confused mentality.

And for what it's worth your "different response" didn't change a thing so show your threats and tantrums to tiny countries where they work.

4) You still didn't answer my question.

5) Provided the facts above right from US govt which contradicts your fantasies and claims I don't think you are in any position to answer anything so a suggestion for you to avoid your spanking on any forum:

Don't start any topic you have no idea about. Forums are different than Facebook status and tweets, you will get rebuttals and alot of them won't be appreciating your cluelessness of the topic but destroying you.

Talk only what you know, read what you don't, and always be ready to accept your mistake instead of justifying it otherwise you will keep getting it from left and right without even knowing what hit you.
I said the US supported India in all wars against China. But no, it doesn't help when you sign up with the Warsaw Pact and sponsor insurgencies in neighbouring countries. That should have been obvious. The US went there to save West Pakistan from Soviet proxy gaming via India, not to attack India. So you are still wrong and your own posts prove it. So your questioning of NATO morality has turned into a confession about your own country and you call that winning an argument? Hi, I signed up with the Soviets and sponsored an insurgency in a neigbouring country and remain annoyed at the evil NATO colonialists because they didn't like it. JFC, it's no wonder China is killing you on GDP, your politicians have a history of being dumb as shit.

As regards your comments on tiny countries. You may not know this, but the Soviet Union, which was not a small country, had it's *censored* kicked out most of Eastern Europe and many countries elsewhere. I.e. you backed the losing side. Get smart. But well done, you broke off a small part of one shit-hole and made two shit-holes. Awesome strategic gain right there.
 
Back on topic. Perhaps you should look at some of the moves Erdogan has made with the Turkish constitution and the various comments he's made. And who was supporting ISIL again. Seems a lot of Turkish journalists got sacked on that issue.
 
I said the US supported India in all wars against China. But no, it doesn't help when you sign up with the Warsaw Pact and sponsor insurgencies in neighbouring countries. That should have been obvious. The US went there to save West Pakistan from Soviet proxy gaming via India, not to attack India. So you are still wrong and your own posts prove it. So your questioning of NATO morality has turned into a confession about your own country and you call that winning an argument? Hi, I signed up with the Soviets and sponsored an insurgency in a neigbouring country and remain annoyed at the evil NATO colonialists because they didn't like it. JFC, it's no wonder China is killing you on GDP, your politicians have a history of being dumb as shit.

As regards your comments on tiny countries. You may not know this, but the Soviet Union, which was not a small country, had it's *censored* kicked out most of Eastern Europe and many countries elsewhere. I.e. you backed the losing side. Get smart. But well done, you broke off a small part of one shit-hole and made two shit-holes. Awesome strategic gain right there.
Done? How old are you btw? Grown ups know when someone is giving them a face saving exit. Anyone reading your ramblings of morality and NATO or US will be laughing their asses off. There are better places to rant, try Facebook or Twitter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aravind
Back on topic. Perhaps you should look at some of the moves Erdogan has made with the Turkish constitution and the various comments he's made. And who was supporting ISIL again. Seems a lot of Turkish journalists got sacked on that issue.
Erdogan thinks he is Sultan of Ottoman Empire, so far world is ignoring him as a non serious person, they are letting him live his dream but not for long, someday reality will wake him up when he'll overstep his bounds.
 
Done? How old are you btw? Grown ups know when someone is giving them a face saving exit. Anyone reading your ramblings of morality and NATO or US will be laughing their asses off. There are better places to rant, try Facebook or Twitter.
Face saving exit? You admitted India started the 1971 Indo-Pak conflict by sponsoring insurgents and then claimed that the US was there to attack India rather than protect the remainder of a NATO-aligned country from a Soviet-backed proxy war.

I don't think anyone will even be looking at my face given that you've metaphorically bent yourself double and stuck a giant dildo in your *censored*. Your admissions regarding your own administration at the time make even Kissinger and Nixon look like saints and nobody would ever argue that.
 
Erdogan thinks he is Sultan of Ottoman Empire, so far world is ignoring him as a non serious person, they are letting him live his dream but not for long, someday reality will wake him up when he'll overstep his bounds.
He's schizo, nobody can even figure out what his game is.
 
Reading the history of it seems you pulled a Russia in S. Ossetia trick. You supported a rebel insurgency in East Pakistan and then when Pakistan responded to that, you had an excuse to become involved militarily. Can't really say you have the moral high ground there, although that doesn't excuse Pakistani atrocities. And given this move earlier in the year.

Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation - Wikipedia

This would have been seen as you acting as a proxy of the USSR, so any reaction you got, you deserved.

An equivalent situation would be China supporting an armed insurgency somewhere on the Indian border and then intervening when you moved to crush it. And if that were to happen, the Russians would look up at the sky and whistle and you would ask NATO for help.
The point is Insurgency was created after West Pakistan dissolved the Parliament and imposed Dictator rule, because East Pakistan won more votes and the West Pakistanis didn't want a Dark Bengali Muslim as their Prime Minister.
When East Pakistan protested the West Pakistani army unleashed "Operation Searchlight" to hunt, execute and Genocide all East Pakistanis.
If was not a insurgency started by India.

It was Sunni Muslims of West Pakistan killing another Sunni Muslim of East Pakistan( because they looked different and spoke Bengali instead of Urudu like Pakistan now speaks).
The Genocide led to Hindus being targeted specifically and The Millions of East Pakistanis refugees came to India, which was being under pressure to support them.

The war didn't happen just out of the blue, our PM went around the world asking for a diplomatic solution to end the crisis, you refused to do anything even overlooked Genocide, when your own diplomats were protesting against you, just because it was your Darling Pakistan doing the Genocide.

After 1 year of futile talks, West Pakistan attacked our 6 airfields on our Western border, which prompted us to go to war since Pakistan declared war on us.
Rest you ganged up wit NATO use your 'Gun Boat Diplomacy' to target the world's largest Democracy in favor of a Dictator commiting Genocide, your plan flopped miserably,

India never started wars, it was only after Enemy declared war, did we start fighting. So get your facts, right.

Coming to China, we all know how their little adventure in Doklam ended recently,
where they had to retreat and respect the status quo.
We are more than capable of Fighting both China and Pakistan on two fronts simultaneously.We got Contingency, strategic Plans for it already.
So stop worrying about China attacking us.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: suryakiran
The point is Insurgency was created after West Pakistan dissolved the Parliament and imposed Dictator rule, because East Pakistan won more votes and the West Pakistanis didn't want a Dark Bengali Muslim as their Prime Minister.
When East Pakistan protested the West Pakistani army unleashed "Operation Searchlight" to hunt, execute and Genocide all East Pakistanis.
If was not a insurgency started by India.

It was Sunni Muslims of West Pakistan killing another Sunni Muslim of East Pakistan( because they looked different and spoke Bengali instead of Urudu like Pakistan now speaks).
The Genocide led to Hindus being targeted specifically and The Millions of East Pakistanis refugees came to India, which was being under pressure to support them.

The war didn't happen just out of the blue, our PM went around the world asking for a diplomatic solution to end the crisis, you refused to do anything even overlooked Genocide, when your own diplomats were protesting against you, just because it was your Darling Pakistan doing the Genocide.

After 1 year of futile talks, West Pakistan attacked our 6 airfields on our Western border, which prompted us to go to war since Pakistan declared war on us.
Rest you ganged up wit NATO use your 'Gun Boat Diplomacy' to target the world's largest Democracy in favor of a Dictator commiting Genocide, your plan flopped miserably,

India never started wars, it was only after Enemy declared war, did we start fighting. So get your facts, right.

Coming to China, we all know how their little adventure in Doklam ended recently,
where they had to retreat and respect the status quo.
We are more than capable of Fighting both China and Pakistan on two fronts simultaneously.We got Contingency, strategic Plans for it already.
So stop worrying about China attacking us.
So it was right for you to support government opposition forces, but you think it is wrong to support the FSA against a dictator?

Like I said, the US concern was to stop a geographical area being overran by a Soviet-allied force. It was a bigger game than just Pakistan vs India. But I'm surprised you can't equate your actions at the time with US actions in Syria, which is also opposing a dictatorship, which is backed by another dictatorship.

Nixon was impeached so it's not like he had a seal of approval. You did yourself no favours by signing co-operation with the Soviets, or simply not picking a side in the first place. Better decisions could have led to a better outcome all round. But don't think the Soviets were angels just because they happened to be on the right side of humanity twice in their whole history. They say a broken clock is right twice a day. And the Soviets were on the right side in WWII and in 1971 but wrong the rest of the time. And even being on the right side in WWII was forced upon them, not a free choice.
Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact - Wikipedia

They have never been on the right side for the right reason in their whole history. In this case it furthered wider geopolitical aims for Communist dominance of the world. In 1988 history exams in Russia were cancelled because the answers were based on BS.

That said, you can't really sponsor an insurgency and say you haven't started a war.
 
So it was right for you to support government opposition forces, but you think it is wrong to support the FSA against a dictator?
We only intervened after 10 Million refugees came to India and moreover, we share a border with Bangladesh, Pakistan Declared war on us by attacking 6 of our Airfields.
The Election was dissolved because East pakistan voted more and a East Pakistani would become PM of whole Pakistan.
How does this apply to Syria,
You don't even share a border with it.
Like I said, the US concern was to stop a geographical area being overran by a Soviet-allied force. It was a bigger game than just Pakistan vs India. But I'm surprised you can't equate your actions at the time with US actions in Syria, which is also opposing a dictatorship, which is backed by another dictatorship.
You got no problems with Saudi Arabia,Jordan and others in middle east as a Dictatorship, why because they sell you oil.
So, you think Assad was like USSR and will overrun the world?

Nixon was impeached so it's not like he had a seal of approval. You did yourself no favours by signing co-operation with the Soviets, or simply not picking a side in the first place. Better decisions could have led to a better outcome all round. But don't think the Soviets were angels just because they happened to be on the right side of humanity twice in their whole history. They say a broken clock is right twice a day. And the Soviets were on the right side in WWII and in 1971 but wrong the rest of the time. And even being on the right side in WWII was forced upon them, not a free choice.
Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact - Wikipedia
Point is we had to sign a treaty after you supported Pakistanis and threatened us with war, go through the declassified archives in US State Govt. website to know history of that era.
We were part of NAM (Non-Aligned Movement) It was only after you pushed us into a corner with Pakistan did we have friendly relations with Soviets.
The Soviets were already kicking the Nazis from Stalingrad and were moving West, when you found it opportunistic to make a pact with them. It was they who broke the Invincibility of Nazis and Blitzkrieg, while all you could manage was Dunkirk, with 1000 Ships rescuing your trapped soldiers and running back to England after getting spanked by Nazis.

That said, you can't really sponsor an insurgency and say you haven't started a war.
I already fed you enough history with official records and proofs from USA state Archives, while you made conjectures on what USA or NATO was doing in 1971, when it is clearly mentioned in their declassified Reports,that they were mobilizing troops to Attack India and its citizens.
So, get off your high horse. India didn't start a war. it was imposed on us by Pakistan and your allies at that time.
 
Facts according to who? You see this is the problem, it's a complicated issue. Maybe the majority of people in East Pakistan wanted to break away as Bangladesh but maybe the majority of people in Kashmir want to break away too. And the same could be said for Catalonia in Spain and many other small parts of countries across the world. That doesn't make it right.

There's a reason why Indians are considered to run global organizations , Murphy , but the Irish run theirs and in most MNC's occupy largely menial positions. You just confirm why it is so.


The Bengalis in the erstwhile East Pakistan revolted en masse when the Western part of it didn't accept the results of the 1971 elections . Please refer to Wikipedia at least before parading your "Irishness ."

As far as J&K is concerned , please acquaint yourself with the facts .The disturbance is within 3-5 districts of a state which has a pretty diverse demographic - religion wise & ethnic wise in that not all Muslims are part of the separatist movement .

The Muslims in Jammu & Ladakh aren't part of it and the Muslims in Jammu are Sunni like the Kashmir valley and the ones in Ladakh are Shia ( it's not like Northern Ireland , O'Brien ) .

I can't comment intelligently on the issue of Catalonia like you pronounce your verdicts on J&K & Bangladesh coz I'm not fully aware of the facts . Does the Spanish Constitution recognise separatism and if so what are the rules of engagement ? Is Catalonia an autonomous region ? If so , what were the terms of its merger with Spain ?

In case of J&K , the UN in its resolution explicitly states that if a plebiscite were to be carried out , Pakistan is to withdraw it's army to the satisfaction of India & the UN , post which the plebiscite would be conducted . It's fairly common knowledge that were this to happen , the Kashmir valley would most likely opt for independence. Something that neither India nor Pakistan desires.

You should acquaint yourself with current affairs but you don't. Never let that impede your right to comment authoritatively on matters you've no clue about thus betraying your true nationality - the Irish :ROFLMAO:


Sure but the real reason was a job not done in 1991 and the unforeseen consequences of that. I said the insurgents were sponsored by Iran and China that was nothing to do with the reason for removing Saddam but does explain the shit-show afterwards.

You can't tell your balls from that of your patrons - the Americans . I've read the movie - Call me by your name is a metaphor for Anglo US relations. I wonder where do the Irish figure in this .

The insurgents would always be sponsored by those nations inimical to the Anglo US enterprise of bringing Democracy to the ME . Why did you fools attempt such a venture when you weren't sure of closure ? As usual there are whimpers and grumblings but no acknowledgement of the fact that you made a mess of things .Something the ME is still haunted by . But , being an Irish , don't ever let that inform your opinion .


So the reason the GDP/Capita in ROI is 40x that of India is simply because it's smaller? How is Dubai a fair comparison, they have tons of oil. But if we take the UAE, even with its copious amounts of oil, its GDP is still lower than ROI's.

Dubai doesn't have oil , Padraig ( in English terms - Padraig = fool = village idiot ) . Abu Dhabi does and so does Sharjah. The UAE comprises of 7 Emirates in an Enterprise designed to give them better bargaining power with each city having its own ruler but the presidentship being rotated among all of them , which is why I referred to Dubai not the UAE . But you need to live up to your reputation . Which you did . Congratulations. Please don't let cautionary messages like the Irish being a simplistic lot ever get in the way of your vision & interpretation of geopolitics .

Have net connection , will comment. If yokels here do that all the time , why should you be an exception , given yokels in the US = Irish ( mostly )

Why are some of the richest men in ROI form India? You wouldn't like the true answer to that.

Why indeed ??!? Coz of the tax breaks , the benefits EU affords their biz , the Schengen structure ( something that's bye bye post Brexit ) and the fact that the Irish are easy going . They lack necessary intelligence in complex geopolitics. Can't blame them . They were under English domination for a good 7 centuries with Scottish support & a diet of potatoes mostly right thru the 18 the & 19 th century courtesy the English. But you already know that and are willing to ignored it for some wider non existent glory .
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Amal and Aravind
We only intervened after 10 Million refugees came to India and moreover, we share a border with Bangladesh, Pakistan Declared war on us by attacking 6 of our Airfields.
The Election was dissolved because East pakistan voted more and a East Pakistani would become PM of whole Pakistan.
How does this apply to Syria,
You don't even share a border with it.

You got no problems with Saudi Arabia,Jordan and others in middle east as a Dictatorship, why because they sell you oil.
So, you think Assad was like USSR and will overrun the world?


Point is we had to sign a treaty after you supported Pakistanis and threatened us with war, go through the declassified archives in US State Govt. website to know history of that era.
We were part of NAM (Non-Aligned Movement) It was only after you pushed us into a corner with Pakistan did we have friendly relations with Soviets.
The Soviets were already kicking the Nazis from Stalingrad and were moving West, when you found it opportunistic to make a pact with them. It was they who broke the Invincibility of Nazis and Blitzkrieg, while all you could manage was Dunkirk, with 1000 Ships rescuing your trapped soldiers and running back to England after getting spanked by Nazis.


I already fed you enough history with official records and proofs from USA state Archives, while you made conjectures on what USA or NATO was doing in 1971, when it is clearly mentioned in their declassified Reports,that they were mobilizing troops to Attack India and its citizens.
So, get off your high horse. India didn't start a war. it was imposed on us by Pakistan and your allies at that time.
Assad and Iran back Hezbollah and the PLA, which are terrorist organisations. And since you like to make accusations about the UK allegedly supporting terrorists in India, you should have noted this. Assad is also a Russian proxy propped up for the sole purpose of blocking competing oil supplies from the Middle East that would benefit both Europe and the Middle Eastern countries of origin economically. His crimes and those of his father are also well documented.

There was the option of just staying out of the East Pakistan issue though wasn't there, rather than stoking it by supporting insurgents. You played UI for the Soviets.

The Soviets were colluding with the Nazis under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact until the Nazis invaded them. The Soviet backed NKVD massacres of ethnic Germans in Poland were also partly, if not largely, responsible for starting the war. The Nazis were kicking the Soviet's asses, because most of the people in Soviet-occupied territory actually sided with the Nazis because the Soviets were so bad. It was the winter that stopped them. I'd also say the British front line in Dunkirk never retreated as far back as the Soviets, even though we were the only one in WWII at the time.

That's what happens when you align yourself with the Soviets, the arch enemy of the free democratic world. Even to this day Russia does not have a proper democracy. Medvedev tried move in that direction and modernise, root out corruption etc. but Putin blocked him. When Medvedev took over the Presidency, he had to fire over 100 bureaucrats and governors for corruption. Russia is one on those democracies where opposition party leaders repeatedly have unfortunate accidents.

There's a reason why Indians are considered to run global organizations , Murphy , but the Irish run theirs and in most MNC's occupy largely menial positions. You just confirm why it is so.


The Bengalis in the erstwhile East Pakistan revolted en masse when the Western part of it didn't accept the results of the 1971 elections . Please refer to Wikipedia at least before parading your "Irishness ."

As far as J&K is concerned , please acquaint yourself with the facts .The disturbance is within 3-5 districts of a state which has a pretty diverse demographic - religion wise & ethnic wise in that not all Muslims are part of the separatist movement .

The Muslims in Jammu & Ladakh aren't part of it and the Muslims in Jammu are Sunni like the Kashmir valley and the ones in Ladakh are Shia ( it's not like Northern Ireland , O'Brien ) .

I can't comment intelligently on the issue of Catalonia like you pronounce your verdicts on J&K & Bangladesh coz I'm not fully aware of the facts . Does the Spanish Constitution recognise separatism and if so what are the rules of engagement ? Is Catalonia an autonomous region ? If so , what were the terms of its merger with Spain ?

In case of J&K , the UN in its resolution explicitly states that if a plebiscite were to be carried out , Pakistan is to withdraw it's army to the satisfaction of India & the UN , post which the plebiscite would be conducted . It's fairly common knowledge that were this to happen , the Kashmir valley would most likely opt for independence. Something that neither India nor Pakistan desires.

You should acquaint yourself with current affairs but you don't. Never let that impede your right to comment authoritatively on matters you've no clue about thus betraying your true nationality - the Irish :ROFLMAO:




You can't tell your balls from that of your patrons - the Americans . I've read the movie - Call me by your name is a metaphor for Anglo US relations. I wonder where do the Irish figure in this .

The insurgents would always be sponsored by those nations inimical to the Anglo US enterprise of bringing Democracy to the ME . Why did you fools attempt such a venture when you weren't sure of closure ? As usual there are whimpers and grumblings but no acknowledgement of the fact that you made a mess of things .Something the ME is still haunted by . But , being an Irish , don't ever let that inform your opinion .




Dubai doesn't have oil , Padraig ( in English terms - Padraig = fool = village idiot ) . Abu Dhabi does and so does Sharjah. The UAE comprises of 7 Emirates in an Enterprise designed to give them better bargaining power with each city having its own ruler but the presidentship being rotated among all of them , which is why I referred to Dubai not the UAE . But you need to live up to your reputation . Which you did . Congratulations. Please don't let cautionary messages like the Irish being a simplistic lot ever get in the way of your vision & interpretation of geopolitics .

Have net connection , will comment. If yokels here do that all the time , why should you be an exception , given yokels in the US = Irish ( mostly )



Why indeed ??!? Coz of the tax breaks , the benefits EU affords their biz , the Schengen structure ( something that's bye bye post Brexit ) and the fact that the Irish are easy going . They lack necessary intelligence in complex geopolitics. Can't blame them . They were under English domination for a good 7 centuries with Scottish support & a diet of potatoes mostly right thru the 18 the & 19 th century courtesy the English. But you already know that and are willing to ignored it for some wider non existent glory .
It's not like Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland voted to remain in the UK.

And as regards massacres I don't really think you have a moral high ground.
List of massacres in India - Wikipedia

So in 1971 you complained about Pakistan killing East Pakistanis and in 1979 you killed them yourselves. Seems like 1971 was more about Soviet-backed geo-political gaming than genuine concern.

You were also very critical of the US in Vietnam but then said nothing when the NVA executed 1.5 million South Vietnamese after overrunning it.

The transition from dictatorship to democracy has never been anything but messy ever. It was messy in India's case too. Does that mean it is something one should not attempt?

UAE is the recognised country, just as the UK is.

ROI isn't in the Schengen zone numb-nuts. It is also richer than most other EU countries per capita.
 
Last edited:
What are your views on Kurds and Kurdistan Turkey boy? How do you feel about these brave freedom fighters?
Difficult one. Turkey sees an autonomous Kurdistan region in Syria/Iraq as a threat rather than a solution. But the Kurds do seem relatively forward thinking compared to most of the muppets in the region.
 
Difficult one. Turkey sees an autonomous Kurdistan region in Syria/Iraq as a threat rather than a solution. But the Kurds do seem relatively forward thinking compared to most of the muppets in the region.

Then it can be same for India too in regards to Kashmir...